Seriously, what part of "conservative values" and the "U.S. Constitution" do Fox "News" "conservatives" not get?

As we've been pointing out for years, and as we re-iterated yet again on Wednesday when CA's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage was found to be unconstitutional by a Reagan/Bush I-appointed federal judge, the ruling was "Great news for real conservatives who believe in the U.S. Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection under the law!"

Poor Fox "News" viewers, however, have been so obscenely and opportunistically disinformed for so many years about what "conservatism" actually means (basically, they've been told by the Fox/GOP opportunists that Republicanism is the same thing as conservatism, when it's usually anything but, and foolish folks on the non-Right have continued that fiction by describing them as "conservatives"), that they've had a next-to-impossible time wrapping their grotesquely disinformed brains around what last Wednesday's extremely conservative ruling actually means.

The scam that has been played on wingnuts --- inaccurately and opportunistically conflating Republicanism with Conservatism --- has rarely been more clear than it was on Fox News Sunday today, when anchor Chris Wallace's "conservative" disinformation train ran smack-dab into the brick wall of conservative facts and reality offered by Theodore Olson, George W. Bush's former Solicitor General (he of the infamous Bush v. Gore), who happens to be the plaintiff's victorious lead attorney in the Prop 8 case.

So, we'll ask again: What part of "conservative values" and the "U.S. Constitution" do Fox "News" "conservatives" not get? As we've got many such disinformed phony "conservatives" trolling us here at The BRAD BLOG, we'll look eagerly forward, as always, to their amusing, self-defeating, non-conservative, anti-Constitutional comments in reply to this video [courtesy of RAW STORY]...

If this guy could convince the Supreme Court that there was a valid reason to stop a "recount" of a Presidential election, it would be surprising that he'd lose any cases he was involved in.

In light of the above, Chris Wallace's question about why he took on this case was answered, I believe, disingenuously. How could it be a Conservative value to disregard the votes of the majority of the people? (Could it be because there still is no Constitutional right to have our votes counted?)

Michael, the majority was never intended to be all powerful. The idea of equal protection is in place to secure the rights of the minority. That's why this is a conservative victory; the tyranny of the majority has been ended.

Conservatives have received from Judge Walker EXACTLY what they have been clamoring for......a full trial in open court and application of long standing constitutional principles of due process and equal protection FOR ALL !

Maybe Chris Wallace has a hard time believing that Theodore Olson could ever lose a Supreme Court case, is because Wallace (like the rest of Faux News) is not familiar with facts and principles. FN promotes emotions (like hatred, jealousy, superiority) but loosely use facts or principles, and only when it serves their emotional/irrational purpose.

First, the propagandists at the Faux "News" network are neither "journalists" nor "conservatives." The "values" they promote are those of reactionary fascism.

Second, the principle, Michael G. @#1, that permits a court to "disregard the vote of the majority" is neither conservative nor liberal. It is a principle embodied in the across-the-political spectrum decision to enshrine certain fundamental rights into the constitution so as to protect each of us from the tyranny of the majority.

Third, the basic assumption about Prop H8, repeated even by Ted Olson and David Bois, is that Prop H8 was actually approved by a majority of California voters at the polls.

In the November 2008 election, the tabulation of votes for California's Proposition 8 --- the controversial ballot measure which resulted in the repeal of marriage equality by, for the first time, amending the state's constitution to deny the rights of Californians --- was "probably corrupted".

That's the finding of a newly released study issued by a coalition of election integrity organizations, as based on their analysis of an Election Verification Exit Poll conducted in Los Angeles on the day of the 2008 general election. "An investigation is warranted," the study concludes, into the evidence which suggests a likelihood that either "fraud or gross errors" occurred in the tabulation of that specific ballot measure.

I was educated in the public school system of Ohio. We not only learned why we have three branches of government, but why it works! Could it be that the State of Ohio offers better education than most other states?

I would love to see a survey of the correlation of quality of public education to the number of Fox News viewers on a state by state basis.

Nobody's civil rights should be left up to the whims of the majority, not gay-lesbian-transgender folks, not adults who smoke pot or do any other drugs, not racial minorites etc. If it is an issue that doesn't infringe upon anyone else's civil rights then no majority and no government has any business whatsoever in trying to dictate society's behavior on the matter.

Republicans are complete hypocrites anyway. That's why they have no problem with laws that prohibit adults from for example choosing to smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes but nearly blow out a ventricle if anyone tries to put a limit on the amount of handguns they can buy in a month. "We don't want no stinkin' government getting involved in our gun-buyin'! But keep on telling otherwise law-abiding adults that they can't choose to smoke pot in their own homes and make sure those gay folks know they're second class citizens who aren't allowed the same rights as straights!" Being a Republican = never growing up to face issues like an adult.

Mark, it isn't just that that's meaningless but rather the entire American political process. Simply put there's no real choice, just an openly conservative candidate versus a closeted conservative. Nobody to represent the interests of the average non-wealthy American. Which is just the way the wealthy ruling elite wants it.

There was no "partial recounts". One can ask for a recount in any county, as per FL law (and as per most states). Gore did so.

Moreover, the recounts were not "standardless". Bush just didn't like the standards because he thought he'd lose under them.

Finally, when the state Supreme Court ordered a full state recount, as Bush wanted, he then went to the U.S. Supreme Court to not let that count happen either.

The will of the people was undermined and the beginning of an eight year illegitimate "presidency" was underway.

Argue all the rightwing talking points you want here, but when you dump bullshit in this forum, expect to be called on it. Your comment was complete bullshit and if you don't know it (and I suspect you do) you do now.

Brad: "There was no "partial recounts". One can ask for a recount in any county, as per FL law (and as per most states). Gore did so."

This is false.

I replied to a point about Bush v. Gore. Bush v. Gore was an appeal of Gore v. Harris. Gore v. Harris was filed under Fla. Stat. 102.168.

While you are correct that a candidate can "ask for a recount in any county" under Fla. Stat. 102.166 (protest of an election), he may NOT do so under Fla. Stat. 102.168 (contest of the certification). Gore lost this point in every court. It didn't matter if it was before a Democratic or Republican appointed Judge.

"Further, this Court would further conclude and find that the properly stated cause of action under Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes to contest a statewide federal election, the Plaintiff would necessarily have to place at issue and seek as a remedy with the attendant burden of proof, a review and recount on all ballots, and all of the counties in this state with respect to the particular alleged irregularities or inaccuracies in the balloting or counting processes alleged to have occurred.

As recently stated by Judge Klein with the concurrence of Chief Judge Warner in the Fourth District Court of Appeal case, of Bedell v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, Section 102.168 provides in Subsection (1) that the certification of elections may be contested for presidential elections. Section 103.011 provides that, "The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes."

"There is in this type of election, one statewide election, and one certification. Palm Beach County did not elect any person as a presidential elector, but, rather, the election with the winner-take-all proposition, dependent on the statewide vote."

Brad: "Moreover, the recounts were not
"standardless". Bush just didn't like the standards because he thought he'd lose under them."

This is also false. Justice Souter's dissent, Bush v. Gore:

"But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g., Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8 10 (Dec. 8, 2000) (soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary."

Are you telling us that both Justice Souter and Judge Burton are not telling the truth?

Please cite.

Brad: "Finally, when the state Supreme Court
ordered a full state recount, as Bush wanted, he then went to the U.S. Supreme Court to not let that count happen either."

This is false. According to David Boies, who was Gore's attorney, the recount included 60,000 ballots.

Transcript of the hearing in Bush v. Gore:

"CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: So, if you disagree that 177,000 ballots will be involved in this recount, how many do you think there are?

MR. BOIES: It's approximately 60,000, I think, Your Honor. It turns out to be less than that because of the recounts that have already been completed. But I think the total sort of blank ballots for the presidency were about 60,000."

Do you care to explain why you consider a recount of just ONE PERCENT of 6 million ballots cast to be a "full state recount"?

Brad: "The will of the people was undermined and the beginning of an eight year illegitimate
"presidency" was underway."

The fact is there was NEVER a full and fair count of all the ballots. Al Gore failed to ask for a full and fair recount of all the ballots under Fla. Stat. 102.166 and Fla. Stat. 102.168. The courts failed to order a fair and full recount of all the ballots in either Palm Beach v. Harris or Gore v. Harris. And the media never once conducted a full and fair "study" (recount) of all the ballots, nor did they even check all of the under and overvoted ballots.

There is no denying that Bush was certified the winner of the state based on the order (Palm Beach v. Harris) by the Florida Supreme Court for a partial recount of the state.

There are some who will claim that the consortium found that Gore won. That is a myth. While the MSM, and those who love to make up their own facts, will try to tell you otherwise, the consortium doesn't support that claim.

Slate.com called out the MSM in this article:

"But even if you assume that all ballots cast were legal and nobody was unjustly turned away from the polls and that the 6 million plus Florida ballots that weren't contested were cast accurately, the Florida winner is still unknowable. This wisdom comes from Kirk Wolter of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, the point person in assembling the data for the project, who is quoted by the Tribune and the AP (and also, only deeper, in stories by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times). The consortium diligently collected 175,010 overvotes and undervotes, but it concedes that it can't be sure if it collected every overvote and undervote. If the margin of victory is just a couple of hundred votes, as it was in nearly all the media recounts, the contest as "too close to call," Wolter says, because the variability of the vote counts—the possible error—would be larger than the margin of victory.

"One could never know from this study alone who won the election," he told the Tribune and other publications."

What is telling is that consortium admitted that they were not sure that even checked all the under and overvote. Considering that there are a number of sources who claim there were a 179,855 spoiled ballots. A study of 175,010 is a partial recount of the "spoiled" ballots.

As we can see, the consortium did not prove a winner, but they did a great job of proving how a partial recount can be used to skew the results.

The question is who determines the will of the people in such cases? The Constitution tells us that it is the Representatives of the People, not the UNELECTED Courts are to make these determinations.

Who determines if Bush's electors are legitimate? The Florida Supreme Court with an ordered recount? Or Congress with the rules set out by 3 U.S.C. section 15?

In his dissent, Justice Beyer noted that it was Congress.

"The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal." H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President)."

On Jan 6, 2001, Congress determined that Bush held a legal slate of Florida Electors, thus he became the legitmate President of the United States.

You may not like the outcome, but the fact is you can't prove who would have won a full and fair count of the ballots. Without such a count, it is up to our representatives to determine the "will of the people".

Brad: "Argue all the rightwing talking points you want here, but when you dump bullshit in this forum, expect to be called on it. Your comment was complete bullshit and if you don't know it (and I suspect you do) you do now."

I don't mind being challenged, in fact I welcome it. But when someone claims that a recount of ONE PERCENT of the ballots (60,000 of more than6 million cast) is a "full state recount", we know whose comments are complete and utter bullshit.

RinR: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.

.......
now hindsight being 20/20 gore should of asked for a complete recount(a lesson franken seemed to learn)

Wrong! Gore prevailed before the FL Supreme Court, which ordered the recount to proceed. That recount was immediately blocked by a team of thugs in suits during the Brooks Brothers riot which turned out to be a team of Republican congressional staffers who were led by John Bolton.

Bush then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, producing perhaps the most profoundly political decision since Dredd Scott

The fact that the five member majority in Bush v. Gore had the power to declare the loser the winner did not mean that Bush received the most votes. Those five members ignored 50 years of Equal Protection and state election law precedents as they committed what amounted to a judicial coup.

Team Gore did not appreciate the potential for wholesale vote flipping via optical scan memory cards--not to mention the Clint Curtis story--nor the impact of the voter suppression efforts of Florida’s Secretary of State and co-chair of the Bush/Cheney, Katherine Harris--responsible for the illegal purge from FL's computerized voter rolls of as many as 97,000 innocent voters, mostly Democrats and mostly African-American.

One of the many misconceptions about the fiasco that was the Florida 2000 Presidential election is the notion that the agony of the post-election battle arose because it was a close election. It wasn’t. Not according to the Voter News Service exit-polls, which projected a 7.3% Gore victory—435,000 votes.

It was this margin, coupled with the track history of accurate exit-polls, that prompted some networks to initially announce an Al Gore victory--a decision abruptly reversed when John Ellis, George W. Bush’s cousin, later that evening, announced over Fox News that George W. Bush had won--an announcement that was promptly seconded by NBC at the insistence of GE CEO Jack Walsh.

It was a moment which underscored the pivotal role played by an Orwellian U.S. corporate media as it pertains to the vital question of election integrity. The moment the other networks joined with Fox and NBC to declare Bush the winner, his status was elevated from a “projected” winner to “the winner.” The official count became the “official reality.” Anyone who questions “official reality” is dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist,” ready to be fitted with a tin foil hat.

Thus, the corporate media perception did not merely depict Gore as a sore loser. He was the Caine Mutiny's Commander Queeg, searching for the missing strawberries.

This is wrong. There were 179,855 (google Florida 179,855) "spoiled ballots". The NORC, or the consortium, checked 175,010 of those ballots.

Article discussing the overvotes: "And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount."

This is wrong. This issue was looked at, but the majority of the FSC did not include those ballots in their order. The dissent questioned this decision.

"26 Also problematic with the majority’s analysis is that the majority only requires that the “undervotes” are to be counted. How about the “overvotes?” Section 101.5614(6) provides that a ballot should not be counted “[i]f an elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office,” meaning the voter voted for more than one person for president. The underlying premise of the majority’s rationale is that in such a close race a manual review of ballots rejected by the machines is necessary to ensure that all legal votes cast are counted. The majority, however, ignores the overvotes. Could it be said, without reviewing the overvotes, that the machine did not err in not counting them?
It seems patently erroneous to me to assume that the vote-counting machines can err when reading undervotes but not err when reading over votes. Can the majority say, without having the overvotes looked at, that there are no legal votes among the overvotes?"

There was never an order for a statewide or a full recount of all the ballots. The order that the author refers to was a recount of 60,000 undervoted ballots in 64 of Florida's 67 counties.

"Yet in the late afternoon of December 8th–four days before this deadline–the Supreme Court of Florida ordered recounts of tens of thousands of so-called “undervotes” spread through 64 of the State’s 67 counties."

Article again discussing the overvote: "Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court."

This is wrong. As I have shown, this was discussed in the opinion handed down in Gore v. Harris. There was also discussion about the overvote in the hearing of Bush v. Gore.

It starts with this discussion:

"JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Boies, can I ask you this question; does that mean there 110,000 overvotes?

MR. BOIES: That's right.

JUSTICE STEVENS: And if that's the case, what is your response to the chief justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes and not overvotes?

MR. BOIES: Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes. And the contest statute begins with a party saying that there is either a rejection of legal votes or an acceptance of illegal votes --"

Further, there was an article published right after the USSC decision in Bush v. Gore that said that Lewis was considering including the overvote in the recount.

Could he do so? Afterall, a HIGHER COURT ruled that they are not to be included. As a Judge from a lower court, could he overrule the ruling from a higher court?

Article: "When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000."

If you had not read the Washington Post article, you would think that there were 63,000 ballots where there is a punch for either Gore or Bush and a their respective name written in. But that is false.

When you read the actual article from the Post, you will see that they are talking about punches in the card. No where in the article do they discuss a write-in vote.

"Florida voters who spoiled their ballots because they punched more than one presidential candidate's name were three times as likely to have included Vice President Gore as one of their choices as George W. Bush, a Washington Post analysis has found."

My point was based on the case of Gore v. Harris (Fla. Stat. 102.168).

If I am wrong, you should have no problem proving it. Please show us where the Fla. Supreme Court allowed Gore to pick and choose which counties were to be recounted under Fla. Stat. 102.168. Here is a link to the case in question, i.e. Gore v. Harris.

yes the overvotes were punched and written in...their is no doubt the intent of those votes

as to why gore didnt ask for a full recount who knows but i hope other pols have learned the lesson as franken did...afterall he suffered insults and ridicule for 8 monthes just so the peoples will would prevail

Sorry Karen, but it appears that Mr. deHaven-Smith is not a very good source of information. Anyone who has read any of the court cases from the Florida 2000 election know full well that Judge Lewis wasn't the first to question the overvote. Further, as I also have shown, he uses the Washington Post article as support for his argument, when in fact it disproves his point.

Karen replied, "....why gore didnt ask for a full recount who knows...."

I think it goes back to the argument that Brad put forth in this discussion, what does the law require. In this case, what the law requires does not do enough to find "the will of the people".

Again, as I pointed out, there has never been a full and fair count of all the ballots in the Florida 2000 Election.

On the other side, here is what the FSC said about Katherine Harris' argument that ALL BALLOTS should be included in the recount.

"Appellees contend that even if a count of the undervotes in Miami-Dade were appropriate, section 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000), requires a count of all votes in Miami-Dade County and the entire state as opposed to a selected number of votes challenged. However, the plain language of section 102.168 refutes appellees' argument."

What a valuable video this is, and such a wonderful illustration of the emptiness of Fox News, to watch Chris Wallace mindlessly repeat the same Republican/Tea Party talking points three times, as Olson effortlessly knocks them down each time.

Starting about thirty years ago, the concept of American conservatism has been steadily bled of whatever meaning it may once have had. In this video, watch as Chris Wallace cites Olson's role in Bush v Gore as evidence of Olson's "conservative" credentials, as if arguing the Republican side in a contested election proved something about Olson's political philosophy. What a joke.

Wallace, of course, confuses "Republican" with "conservative." The disconnect illustrates once again the tenuous grip on reality of Fox News. What will it take to bring these secessionists from reality back into the world of meaning and logic? It has to happen eventually.

a reasonable person would conclude that just the spoiled butterfly ballots sited in the above link would of put gore ovr the top but i will agree with you on one thing...there nevr was a full and fair count at all

For my money the key section in the media consortium's review of ballots is the part where they state--If all the ballots were counted Gore won by whatever standard applied.

This doesn't include all the known hanky-panky like Bush brown shirts stopping a recount, faulty paper for voting on, purging of legitimate voters, etc., or the enormous discrepancy between the exit polls and the "official" vote tally.

I don't know if all of this would qualify as beyond a reasonable doubt in court. For me, it's close enough. I have no doubt Gore won.

If Mark Da Shark sees a reality that says there is no way to know for sure who won or that Bush actually did, to me it looks like a result of magic thinking. I don't care how long a comment writes. Still looks like magic thinking.

The truth about Florida is that if the U.S. had a genuinely democratic process of electing its president then there would have been no need for a Florida recount in the first place because the amount of votes in question were quite small compared to Al Gore's lead of 500,000+ votes nationwide. The Electoral College makes a mockery of the concept of voting for a president because it can overturn the REAL (popular) vote. When anyone in elementary school votes for their class president nobody says "Well, Jimmy got more votes but Susan gets elected president because of the location in the classroom where the people who voted for her were sitting." It's madness.

Am I the only one who sees how insane a system the Electoral College is and that we shouldn't be arguing about minutiae like whether Florida's butterfly ballots reflected the intent to vote for this or that candidate but instead arguing about abolishing this horrid Electoral College itself so we never again have to endure a president losing an election but ending up as president anyway?

brutal..until we have a system whr the ballots are actually counted...the eletoral college helps stop the powers that be from switching the winner because its way harder for them to rig every state than 1 national count..look at france as an example

2.The Battle for Florida - An Annotated Compendium of Materials from the 2000 Election, by Lance deHaven-Smith, photo, (published by the University Press of Florida in 2005) states on page 8, “In a year-long study paid for by the nation’s most important newspapers, NORC [National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago] carefully examined and evaluated all the 175,010 ballots that had remained uncounted at the end of the dispute.” On page 39, “…”Gore has the most votes when all votes are counted.”

In 2005, deHaven-Smith concluded, …”[M]ost Americans are under the mistaken impression that the true winner of the 2000 presidential election could not be definitively determined….Americans hold this erroneous opinion because they were misled and confused by journalists, political consultants, academics, and others…”

Why do you call these studies "partial"?

They're looking at all the under and overvotes, judging them by any criteria you can come up with, and Gore wins.

Add in all the voter manipulation, voter suppression, recount shenanigans (all of which you don't seem to acknowledge as existing), and I come up with election theft.

3. You don't know me. You're responding to one comment I made, as far as I can tell. That you would assert that it's clear that I can't back my claims is beyond the pale.

Found this right off the bat--The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reviewed all 179,855 "uncountable" votes and found the majority attempted to choose Gore. And they would have been counted --- but Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered a halt.--in an article by Greg Palast.

So that was a help. Thanks.

Then after quoting me you write--

"I am sure that know more about those allegations, FROM BOTH SIDE, than you do."--

to which I again say, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Unless you're God(are you?), from what little I've said here, I don't see how you could know if I'm a monkey who's learned how to type a little or Warren Spahn.

"The raw data file contains 175,010 records. Of these, 61,190 are undervotes and 113,820 are overvotes. In total, 138,037 ballots were from counties using Votomatic technology, 5,198 from counties using Datavote, and 31,775 from counties using Optical Scan technology. The complete breakdown of ballots by ballot type (undervotes/overvotes, Votomatic/Datavote/Optical Scan) follows:"

One of the many misconceptions about the fiasco that was the Florida 2000 Presidential election is the notion that the agony of the post-election battle arose because it was a close election. It wasn’t. Not according to the Voter News Service exit-polls, which projected a 7.3% Gore victory—435,000 votes.

Why is it important to repeat disproven data? Do you really expect us to believe that Gore really won Duval County with NINTY EIGHT PERCENT of the vote?

"One of the many misconceptions about the fiasco that was the Florida 2000 Presidential election is the notion that the agony of the post-election battle arose because it was a close election. It wasn’t. Not according to the Voter News Service exit-polls, which projected a 7.3% Gore victory—435,000 votes."

The only reason VNS reported Gore with such a lead is because they had made several errors.

"9:07 p.m.: VNS reports to its clients some highly questionable voting data from Duval County. (Later scrutiny determined that a VNS keypunch operator had entered incorrect vote-count data, which had the effect of making it appear that Gore had won 98 per cent of the Duval County vote tabulated up to that time.)

9:20 p.m.: The CORE estimate now shows Gore ahead again, but it turns out this is due to the mistaken Duval County data which has gotten into the estimate."

Commentary:
In studying these events related to the call for Gore and its retraction, we note the brief amount of time between the calls for Gore y the different news organizations and that clearly the “arms race” was on. That kind of competition for a one- or two-minute lead over the competition does not allow for sufficient time for reasoned judgment and decision making, particularly in a state that has so many uncertainties. Florida was key to the outcome of the national election and earlier polls predicted it would be a very tight race. Experience alone should have served to put up serious proceed-with-caution signs.

We also note the use of the word “call” for Gore, based on exit polls, a few sample precincts and only 4 percent of the actual ote, which showed Bush leading. We believe that this language of certainty should be avoided, especially when the evidence is not nearly as substantial as it should have been to make such a call.

We also note that the early Florida call was based on many faulty assumptions:
· an assumption that exit polls are an accurate reflection of actual voting;
· an assumption concerning the number of absentee ballots, which turned out to be wrong by about 5 percentage points (on a base of 7);
· an assumption of the accuracy of the voting samples in key precincts, which also turned out to be wrong;
· the acceptance of 1-in-200 odds for accuracy on the assumption that a proper sample is in use.
· the assumption that accurate calls can be made, even in very tight races, based on statistical odds which are “estimates,” not actual numbers.

I haven't done the homework on Mark's #33 cuz I don't have time to track everything he says down.

I did do some homework and thinking on my interaction with him. I believe he has a facility for partial truth telling for obfuscation purposes. For instance--

In his comment#29 he says to me-- Google: florida 179,855 and see what you find.
Then do the math 179,855 less 175,010 means this was a partial study.--

So I googled. And I did find an article by Greg Palast that uses the number 179,855 for uncounted ballots in Florida in 2000. This perhaps would seem to give Mark's assertion some credibility. But then Palast states in his article that the consortium reviewed all 179,855 of these uncounted ballots. This seems different from what Mark was saying(though to tell the truth I'm not always sure what Mark is saying). Mark's claim is that there were 179,855 uncounted ballots and that the study only reviewed 175,010 of them. Hence, "partial"(ie. unreliable) study.

No idea how to explain the discrepancy between the 179,855 uncounted ballots Palast said were reviewed and the 175,010 uncounted ballots the study says were reviewed. So that could stand some clarification. My point here is that so far, on this aspect of the discussion, Mark hasn't proven anything. He's merely pointed out a source that gives a different number for the full complement of reviewed ballots. This does not prevent him from trumpeting the fabulous triumph he's achieved in his own mind over evidence-free me.

So now, Mark having successfully lured me into finding the higher number that backs his assertion that the studies were "partial", comes back in comment#31 to checkmate me again(in his mind)with the lower 175,010 number from the NORC study. This time though, apparently, he's citing the smaller number to discredit the larger 179,855 number he just used to prove himself right. And I think for him this again proves me unequivocally evidence-free. With no sense of irony, he hammers it home with--
Now that you have dismissed your own source, you don't have any proof to back your claim.--

Sorry, this is so tortured and silly. It's also just the tip of the iceberg with this guy. I don't have time to deconstruct the shark here. I'm just trying to make the point that in my little experience here with Mark, he does not appear to be a reliable witness.

My point is quite simple. There was NEVER a full and fair count, or recount, of all the ballots in Florida. PERIOD. It never happened, not by the state/counties, not by the courts, not by the media.

You have tried to claim that the NORC said that if all the ballots were counted, the the Gore would have won by any standards. Where is the proof?

The NORC didn't check all the spoiled ballots. In fact, Kurk Wolter from the NORC said that they could not determine a winner. Yet, you claim that they are wrong, that they did find a winner.

Why are we to believe? Mr. Wolter, who actually worked on the study? Or you?

As to the 179,855 number is what has been reported by several sources. The United States Commission of Civil Rights give a chart of the spoiled ballots from each county. They show the number as 179,895.

1.You provide this link--http://www.usccr.gov/pub...report/appendix/app1.htm
You say this is a chart from the United States Commission on Civil Rights that shows the number of uncounted ballots as 179,855.
I go to the link. There is a chart. It is from the USCCR. But there is no number 179,855. Every county in Florida is listed with spoiled votes. There is some other data. The chart is from a survey by the Orlando Sentinel. But I can't find the number 179,855 anywhere. This is why I say you provide partial truths to obfuscate. Your link does not provide what you say it does. Did you mean that I was supposed to add up a foot long column and that would have provided your number? Cuz you didn't say that. Is that what you meant? Where's the number?
Maybe that number is around there somewhere. I'm not good with computers. But I sure don't see it at the link that comes up. So I feel like I'm spending time chasing geese.-Mark Da Goose.

2. Oh fuck it. I don't have time for this.

3. Mark brings a lot of quotes, cites things, and exhibits a lot of unpleasant self-righteous attitude in doing so. He cites Kirk Wolter as an authoritative source from the NORC study. He is apparently completely devoid of curiosity as to why Kirk Wolter might be of his various opinions regarding the reliability of his study for determining likely voter intent--personal bias, not wanting to rock the boat after 9/11, etc.

4.Mark quotes Wolter--"The consortium diligently collected 175,010 overvotes and undervotes, but it concedes that it can't be sure if it collected every overvote and undervote."--This is no doubt literally true and Mark's attitude seems to be that this is more compelling evidence. To me it isn't. For me there are other sources that provide more credible analysis as to the will of the Florida electorate in 2000. Mark again provides the Slate link to an article from Nov. 2001. Mark again sounds rather snarky in challenging me and my sources.

5. I do not beleive Mark debates in good faith as he repeatedly does not address issues like the thousands of voters illegally purged as felons, the Republican brownshirts disrupting a recount that was switching to Gore, etc. When he does deal with an issue raised that runs counter to his viewpoint, like the exit poll discrepancy, he does so in a very limited, uncomprehensive way citing only GOP talking points type evidence. The volumes of evidence and argument of the other side remains unacknowledged.

6.Mark has a shitty dismissive style.

7.My sources-

Loser Take All--chapter by Lance DeHaven-Smith. Mark dismisses this guy as a source. For reasons that for me so far remain opaque at best.

Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? by Freeman and Bleifuss.

I believe these guys. They seem thorough and comprehensive. They go through the NORC study. If you only count the undervotes thoroughly Gore narrowly wins under any standard you choose. When you add in the overvotes(and this part is largely left out by the media and by Mark)Gore wins by tens of thousands of votes.

So I say again--even with all the GOP shenanigans (which Mark does not acknowledge); even with the still unexplained(to me anyway)discrepancy between the two numbers(175,010 vs 179,855) of uncounted ballots; even with the still largely unexplained exit poll discrepancies-- Gore wins. Handily. And, of course, this is what you'd expect from the exit polls.

If we're supposed to be judging the will and intent of the voters in Florida in 2000, for me, the evidence suggests overwhelming that the people of Florida chose Al Gore.

I repeat--I do not find Mark a credible witness. I do not think he is searching for the truth in good faith. He doesn't fully respond to contrary evidence and argument. He's attidunal.

4) There are no "other sources". As I have correctly pointed out, there are NO FULL COUNTS or RECOUNTS of the state of Florida for the 2000 election. ZERO, NONE, NADA, they simply do not exist.

5) You have yet to make a claim, you talk in generalities. As I have said, I know more about the allegiations from both sides than you.

Since I have proven you to be wrong on this point, i.e. "If all the ballots were counted Gore won by whatever standard applied", I will be glad to address another one of your arguments in another post to this discussion.

7) I have defeated every cite from Mr. DeHaven-Smith, why shouldn't we dismiss him as a source?

He tried to tell us that Judge Lewis was the first to look at the overvote. Of course this is nothing but ignorance of the facts. I posted the link to where is was discussed by the dissent in Gore v. Harris. That was all I needed to defeat his claim. I could have also pointed to Palm Beach v. Harris, where those ballots WERE INCLUDED in that recount. That order was close to 3 weeks before the second order from the Florida Supreme Court.

Go back to #16 for more.

I really don't care if you think that I am a "credible witness" or mot, because the facts speak for themselves. You can attack me all you like, but as I have proven, you are wrong.

No matter how many you try to run away from the truth, this is still a false claim: "If all the ballots were counted Gore won by whatever standard applied."

".....the Republican brownshirts disrupting a recount that was switching to Gore....."

There was never a full and fair count of the ballots in Florida. Both the manual recounts were ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The first was under Fla. Stat. 102.166 (Palm Beach v. Harris) was a recount of 4 counties. The second was under Fla. Stat. 102.168 (Gore v. Harris). As I showed to Brad in #13, this was a recount of just ONE PERCENT of the ballots cast.

How can you claim to support fair elections and fair recounts, and then throw it all away so that you can support a meaningless partial recount of the ballots?

You don't care about following the law? Or following the U.S. Constitution? What about find the will of the people of the state of Florida with a full recount? Is it because you only care about "switching" the election Gore by any means?

You and I are not playing by the same rules so this will never go anywhere. You seem to think my points lack merit and I think yours make no sense.

For me there is not enough harvest from our interaction to make it worthwhile continuing.

But I will try one more time to explain in a simple way why I think you're missing the boat, the dock, the ocean, the planet.

According to the website from the last link you provided the goal of the NORC project was not to declare a winner. So for me when Wolter says he can't say who won he may merely be being consistent with the stated mission of his project. The data was collected for whoever wants to analyze it to do so. For you it seems Wolter saying he can't say who won is a big point in your favor. To me it sounds like the NORC has a reputation for being non-partisan and it's not hard to imagine he's just carefully protecting that reputation. The subject of who won in 2000 is obviously a highly charged one. Maybe Wolter didn't want to rock the boat so soon after 9/11. I have no idea. But you acting like Wolter not declaring a winner is some definitive proof or strong point in your favor that the winner cannot be reasonably determined by the data that Wolter helped compiled for us all to analyze does not make sense to me.

The NORC did a thorough examination of 175,010 uncounted ballots. For reasons to be explained, it doesn't matter whether the number of actually uncounted votes was 175,010 or 179,855 or something else. Because everyone seems to agree the number IS in the vicinity of 180,000. In this case it turns out that's close enough. The data exists for the 175,010 uncounted ballots that were examined.

In the book--Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?--the authors Steven Freeman and Joel Bleifuss review the data. They review both a Miami Herald Report focusing on the undervotes and the NORC report compiling the data on both under and overvotes, together totaling 175,010 uncounted votes. The charts of the data are in the book. They show that when all the reviewed but previously uncounted undervotes are added up Gore wins by narrow margins for whatever standard chosen. When the overvotes are added in Gore wins by tens of thousands of votes. This is why the exact number, in this case, doesn't matter. Gore's margin of victory is too big to make it matter.

Freeman and Bleifuss also explain the different kinds of votes or attempted votes that were examined and why one CAN be sure what the voters' intentions were. This is something you, Mark, never acknowledge or perhaps don't know.

Shit I was imprecise again. When I said near the end of my previous comment---They show that when all the reviewed but previously uncounted undervotes are added up Gore wins by narrow margins for whatever standard chosen.--the "They" refers to the authors not the word "charts" in the preceding sentence.

David: "You and I are not playing by the same rules so this will never go anywhere."

I agree. I believe that the facts matter, you do not seem to hold that same belief.

David: "The NORC did a thorough examination of 175,010 uncounted ballots. For reasons to be explained, it doesn't matter whether the number of actually uncounted votes was 175,010 or 179,855 or something else. Because everyone seems to agree the number IS in the vicinity of 180,000. In this case it turns out that's close enough. The data exists for the 175,010 uncounted ballots that were examined."

1) I see that you have stopped from running away from the truth on the number of ballots that the NORC exmained. Greg Palast was wrong, the NORC did not check 179,855 ballots as you tried to have us believe, they check 175,010.

This is why I say that you do not believe in the facts. You are/were willing to IGNORE the truth if it serves/served your propose.

2) It does matter on the number of spoiled ballots. If all ballots are not checked within the margin of error, your point fails.

The only way to tell a winner of an election is to count all the ballots with a uniformed counting standard. That never took place in the state of Florida for the 2000 election. There is no recount, no study, nothing to prove that Gore or Bush would have won a such a count.

David: "When the overvotes are added in Gore wins by tens of thousands of votes."

Not even your own cite of the NORC found that to be true. Using the LAWS of Florida, they could not find "tens of thousands of votes" for Gore. They even checked the punch/write-in ballots using FAC 1S-2.0031, and still they do not support this claim.

David: "Freeman and Bleifuss also explain the different kinds of votes or attempted votes that were examined and why one CAN be sure what the voters' intentions were. This is something you, Mark, never acknowledge or perhaps don't know."

I have seen similar reports before. Their arguments would not hold up in court. I am not impressed with studies that do not follow the laws of the state of Florida. Their "study" does not prove who would have won a full and fair (lawful) count of the state.

David: "For a shark you sure blow a lot of hot air."

Again, the facts do not support your claim. You can rail on me all you like, but you still have not made your case.

"Write-ins are ballots on which there is a mark for either Bush or Gore, and that candidate's name is written in. Two-mark overvotes are ballots on which either Bush or Gore is marked and one other mark for president is also on the ballot. Multiple-mark overvotes are ballots on which either Bush or Gore is marked and more than one other mark for president is also on the ballot."

"While it's possible that in some cases these allocations may not represent the intent of the voter, the great bulk undoubtedly do. In most cases, it's easy to understand both the intent and why the "error" was made. On the butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County, for example, it said "vote the group," so punches were made both next to the presidential candidate and below, next to the vice presidential candidate. In others, the ballot itself gave incorrect instructions. More than 20% of ballots in black precincts of Duval County were rejected because the listing of presidential candidates was split over two pages, and on the sample ballot, voters were instructed to mark every page. Had the most reasonable interpretation for the broad majority of overvotes been accepted, Gore would have won by more than 40,000 votes, despite all the other problems with ballots that cut into his totals. Even had only those ballots been counted in which the voter emphatically tried to ensure the vote by writing in Gore's name as well as marking it, Gore would have won."

These are the kind of facts and analyses that have meaning for me. And that you seem to refute without much counter-argument and seem to think your refutation means something cuz you say it does.

As for whether anything would hold up in court or not, so what? The courts can be whimsical, biased, and unconstitutional themselves. You like to invoke the law when it's convenient for you. Have you never heard of courts upholding laws that were not just? Or making interpretations of laws where justice is denied? What planet are you living on?

You sound like you think you're infallible. Do you? Do you really think you can know what a court would decide on any particular controversial matter? I'd guess any decision would be heavily dependent on who was presiding over the court on any given day.

I reiterate, from what I've read on this matter, it's clear that the intention of the electorate of Florida in 2000 was to choose Al Gore.

If there's an argument to dissuade me of this belief, it has not been made by you. I've looked at this shit obsessively for years and to me it's clear. Gore won.